You literally didn’t answer the question though. You just rephrased the question and replaced all the content with your own prior conclusions.

That’s exactly begging the question.

>your own prior conclusions

Oh please. Again it's my answer to the question.

"[The difference is that this is] slow encroaching market takeover by artificially crippled products for blood-sucking rent seeking."

Hope this helps.

"artificially crippled products for blood-sucking rent seeking"

that's the point that's up for discussion, but that's just being asserted with no supporting arguments.

If you're trying to claim it's not "artificial" or "rent seeking," feel free to make that argument.

Seemed self-explanatory enough to me.

Much better. It’s a lot more obvious how insubstantial and emotional the “argument” is. Just bad vibes word salad.

> insubstantial and emotional

I see you didn't take Econ 101.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Tell me, what specifically about this press release unveiling a new tire meets the definition of rent-seeking?

Lest you "forget," the context of the current thread is this post[0].

Since this is what you're reduced to, I see real discussion is finished now. Thank you for contributing.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38611689